Minde Pramod Gorakh v. The State Of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Principal Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:11102-DB 1 WP / 8533 / 2022 CORRECTED VIDE COURT'S ORDER DATED 18-06-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8533 OF 2022 Minde Pramod S/o Gorakh .. Petitioner

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Secondary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2] The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune-411001 3] The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar 4] Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chandanapuri, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Honourary Secretary 5] Chandaneshwar Vidyalaya, Chandanapuri, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Headmaster .. Respondents ...

Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Shivaji T. Shelke AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. K.S. Patil Advocate for respondents no. 4 and 5 : Mr. S.S. Wagh ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 13 JUNE 2024 ORAL ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

Heard both the sides.

2.

Petitioner's proposal for inclusion of his name in the Shalarth Pranali has been rejected by the impugned order by the Deputy Director of Education vide communication dated 04-04-2022.

2 WP / 8533 / 2022 3.

It is being pointed out that while the proposal was pending consideration by the Deputy Director of Education, he has raised a query initially, to which the Education Officer had responded by his communication dated 18-05-2021 (Exhibit - F). Again the Deputy Director raised further queries by communication dated 25-05-2021. Without awaiting for the response and apparently in spite of the queries being the same which were already responded to by the Education Officer, the Deputy Director has refused to include the petitioner's name in the Shalarth Pranali vide his communication dated 04-042022. There is no objective decision arrived at by the Deputy Director. It is only a communication of the decision and sans any reasons. 4.

In view of above, we allow the writ petition partly. 5.

The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. 6.

We direct respondent no. 3 - Education Officer to respond to the queries raised by respondent no. 2 - Deputy Director of Education vide his communication dated 25-05-2021 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks from today. On receipt of such explanation / clarification by the Education Officer, respondent no. 2 shall consider the petitioner's case afresh on its own merits after hearing the petitioner and the management and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/